Down Syndrome Research and Practice
Classroom
behaviour, language
competence, and
the acceptance of
children with Down
syndrome by their
mainstream peers
Glynis Laws,
Department of Psychology, University of
Surrey, U.K.
Maura Taylor, Susan Bennie
and Sue Buckley
Department of Psychology, University of
Portsmouth, U.K.
This study investigated the popularity of children with
Down syndrome with their peers in mainstream
classrooms using established sociometric techniques.
The classroom behaviour of 16 children with Down
syndrome aged 8 to 11 years were assessed and the
relationship between these behaviours and acceptance
investigated. For comparison, the relationship between
classroom behaviour and acceptance of 122 typically
developing children from the same classes was
examined. The majority of the children with Down
syndrome were found to enjoy average levels of
acceptance in the class. Although behaviour problems
were significantly worse in the children with Down
syndrome, poor behaviour did not influence the other
children to reject them. There was a different picture for
typically developing children where there was a strong
relationship between behaviour and peer acceptance.
Language skills were also assessed for the children with
Down syndrome. The children’s language skills were not
related to their popularity with the other children. Neither
problem behaviours nor language difficulties influenced
friendships in or out of the classroom for the children
with Down syndrome.
Acknowledgements
The data for this research were collected by Susan Bennie
and Maura Taylor for their dissertations for the BSc in
Psychology at the University of Portsmouth. The authors
would like to thank the children and teachers at the
Hampshire schools which participated in the study.
© 1993, 1999. The Down Syndrome Educational Trust
Down Syndrome Research and Practice
1996, 4 (3) 100-109
100
Introduction
Mainstream education
Since the publication of the Warnock report (1978), and the
Education Act (1981) it has been government policy to
integrate children with Down syndrome into mainstream
schools. While this policy is some way from being
implemented in many areas of the U.K., in Hampshire, where
the study reported here took place, there has been a
significant move towards mainstream placements for the
children. It is important to understand how the children are
accepted by their peers and whether any aspects of their
behaviour influence this acceptance.
The move towards mainstream education for children with
learning disabilities was in response to several factors.
Mainstream classrooms provide a richer language
environment in which to develop communication skills
(Guralnick, 1984), and to develop peer relationships
(Guralnick, 1978). It was expected that sociable behaviours
would be increased by the imitation of typically developing
children (Guralnick, 1984), and by the opportunity to develop
friendships at school with children from the same
neighbourhood (Byrne, Cunningham & Sloper, 1989). Also,
mainstreaming provides typically developing children with
experience of learning disabilities and so may promote
greater tolerance and understanding of the variability in
human abilities (Gottlieb & Leyser, 1981; Stainback &
Stainback, 1985). Schools are a microcosm of society and
reducing stigma attached to disabled children is a major
goal of mainstreaming policy (Falvey, 1995).
Peer relations
Peer relationships are important to cognitive and social
development (Piaget, 1932). They influence the
development of self (Sullivan, 1953), facilitate cognitive
development (Perret-Clermont, 1980) and contribute to the
development of communicative competence (Guralnick,
1981). A child’s social behaviour and personal-social
effectiveness is largely governed by the experience of social
interactions with peers (Baumrind, 1972; Charlesworth &
Hartup, 1967) and the foundations of all adult relationships
may originate in childhood (Duck, 1983).
The measurement of peer popularity/acceptance
Sociometric methods for studying popularity and
unpopularity have been developed over time based on the
work of Moreno (1934). The method involves rating children
according to the number of positive nominations received
when classmates are asked “who do you most like?”, and
may include a negative rating element by asking “who do
you least like?” and subtracting this from the positive
nomination (Asher & Hymel, 1981; Gronlund & Anderson,
1957). This formula distinguishes between children who are
actively rejected by their peers and those who are simply
not nominated as liked. Using such methods, children can
be classified as popular or unpopular based on a procedure
by Coie and Dodge (1983). Alternatively, children may be
classified into three social status groups defined according
to a study by Parker and Asher (1993) as highly accepted,
averagely accepted and low accepted or rejected children.
In typically developing children, relationships have been
established between these status groups and behaviour. The
behavioural correlates of rejected status include aggression,
rule violations, hyperactivity and disruptiveness, with
Volume 4
aggression more associated with the rejection of boys (Coie,
Dodge & Kupersmidt,1990). In elementary school, physical
aggression gives way to verbal aggression and disruption
of classes as children get older. There is also a relation in
middle school between social withdrawal and rejection,
particularly for girls. However, all these behaviours could as
easily be consequences of rather than causes of rejection.
Peer relations of children with learning disabilities
Adolescents with moderate learning disabilities in special
schools have similar social structures to typical youngsters
(Siperstein and Bak, 1989). However, Guralnick (1984)
suggests that in specialised settings a highly atypical path
of social development is followed with children reaching an
asymptotic level of interaction with peers during early
preschool and remaining there until the early elementary
school years.
Field, Roseman, Destefano and Koewler (1981) found that
mainstreaming had no substantial effect on social and play
interactions of the developmentally delayed. Guralnick
(1981) found reduced levels of inappropriate play for the
severely delayed in mainstream settings, but believed the
effects of integration may be superficial and that extensive
social separation occurs during more elaborate, more
important forms of social play. Typically developing children
behaved more like adults or older siblings in their
communication with disabled friends so that co-equal
interactions, said to be necessary for promoting peer
relations, may not be achieved in mainstream programmes.
Much of the research literature suggests that learning
disabled children are less accepted in mainstream classes.
Weiner (1987), in a meta analysis of 19 studies, found that
15 of them showed that the learning disabled had lower peer
status than the non learning disabled. Weiner, Harris and
Shirer (1990) found learning disabled children were less likely
to be rated as popular and more likely to be rated as
neglected and rejected. However, Kistner and Gatlin (1989)
found the majority of integrated learning disabled children
were popular, with about one third of them neglected or
rejected. Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray and Garstecki (1983)
also found a substantial number of the learning disabled to
be popular, while Dudley-Marling and Edmiason (1985)
suggest most learning disabled children enjoy relatively
neutral social status.
Despite this variability in group findings, one consistent result
is that some learning disabled children are accepted by their
peers (Kistner & Gatlin 1989). Research has attempted to
investigate what distinguishes those who are more accepted
than others, as well as why there may be less acceptance
generally of this group. In typically developing children, there
are consistent relationships between intelligence, academic
achievement and peer status (Hartup 1970). Horowitz (1981)
found IQ and peer acceptance also correlated amongst the
learning disabled and that significant differences between
the peer status of learning disabled and typically developing
children were eliminated when IQ was co-varied. Kistner and
Gatlin (1989) found no relationship between IQ or academic
achievement and peer status, and no difference in these
factors between popular or rejected learning disabled
children.
Aggression and withdrawal are negatively correlated with
positive peer evaluation and positively correlated with
Number 3
1996
negative evaluation (Kistner & Gatlin, 1989). Gresham and
Reschly (1986) also found that peer rejection was positively
correlated with peer ratings of dependence, unassertiveness
and passivity. These relationships may be similar to those
discovered between peer acceptance and behaviour for
typically developing children (Coie, Dodge & Kupersmidt,
1990) and further investigations of the relationship between
classroom behaviour problems and peer relations of learning
disabled children may be worthwhile.
Behaviour of children with Down syndrome
The evidence regarding the prevalence of behaviour
problems within the Down syndrome population is mixed.
Differences in the severity of intellectual impairment,
chronological age, gender distribution and method of sample
recruitment may all affect research findings, so caution is
required in interpreting results (Cuskelly & Dadds 1992). A
stereotype exists of the child with Down syndrome as good
tempered, affectionate, placid and cheerful (Tredgold 1949,
Domino 1965, Gibson 1978); Gunn and Berry (1985)
describe individuals with Down syndrome as easy to
manage. However, Gath (1972) found the majority of parents
complained of serious management problems; Gath and
Gumley (1984) found 8 out of 14 boys and 3 out of 8 girls
suffered behaviour problems. Byrne et al (1989) reported
that 44% of mothers of children with Down syndrome found
behaviour problems the hardest thing to cope with. Ganiban,
Wagner and Ciccheti (1990) have concluded that the old
stereotype of “easy temperament” and temperament
homogeneity is not supported and that within the Down
syndrome population a variety of temperament profiles and
range of characteristics exist.
Many of the behaviour problems described by researchers
have been attributed to attention deficits. Green, Dennis and
Bennets (1989) found evidence of variation in attention
related behaviours within Down syndrome which was not a
simple reflection of lower mental age. Children with Down
syndrome may have more problems overall than their
siblings and significantly more attention/immaturity problems
(Cuskelly & Dadds,1992; Gath & Gumley, 1987). Pueschel,
Bernier and Pezzullo (1991) found more hyperactivity, mainly
due to lack of concentration, attention seeking and
impulsivity. These are all problems associated with peer
rejection in typically developing children.
The importance of language in peer relationships
The slow development of motor, perceptual, cognitive,
language and communication skills may all lead to difficulties
in developmentally delayed children since these functional
areas all underlie social competence (Serafica, 1990). The
language difficulties experienced by many children with
Down syndrome could therefore place them at a social
disadvantage. Language development tends to be delayed
relative to typically developing children and in relation to
other cognitive skills. Language comprehension is generally
better than language expression which rarely exceeds that
of the typical three to five year old (Chapman, 1995; Fowler,
1990). In addition, individuals with Down syndrome
experience complex speech difficulties leading to problems
of intelligibility (Hamilton, 1993).
The importance of language in sustaining peer relations
becomes clear when considered in relation to the
developmental course that peer relations take. Gottman and
colleagues (Gottman, 1983; Gottman & Mettetal, 1986;
101
Down Syndrome Research and Practice
Gottman & Parkhurst, 1980; Parker & Gottman, 1989)
characterise the development of peer relations in terms of
three periods. In early childhood, from age 3 to 7 years,
children may engage in parallel play which places few social
demands on children. However, fantasy play offers children
more satisfaction but places greater demands on their
communication and social skills. Goldstein and Gallagher
(1992) suggest that, for this reason, children with limited
language skills may be less valued partners for this important
fantasy play.
From ages 8 to 12 years, the main theme of peer
relationships is group inclusion; it is important to be part of
a group and to avoid rejection. Parker and Gottman (1989)
suggest that verbal behaviours such as gossip and teasing
are important in forming social groups, and many group
norms deal with the content and style of talking. Poor
language skills will make it difficult for children to join in with
this sophisticated verbal interaction (Goldstein & Gallagher,
1992). Similarly, during adolescence, from ages 13 to 18
years, the highly verbal activities which characterise this age
will be difficult for those with poor language skills.
Brooks-Lynn and Luciano (1985) have highlighted a role for
expressive language deficits in poor peer interaction.
However, language deficits may not inevitably reduce the
potential for successful peer relationships. Carpenter (1995)
investigated the attitudes of his daughter’s 7 to 8 year old
classmates. She has Down syndrome and, although the
comments of her classmates make it clear that they were
very aware of her language difficulties, there was no
suggestion of any lack of acceptance.
The roles of behaviour and language skills in peer
acceptance
The literature reviewed suggests that peer acceptance of
children with Down syndrome in mainstream classes could
be affected by classroom behaviour and/or language skills.
The study reported here investigated this relationship by
comparing the levels of popularity of typically developing
children to the levels enjoyed by children with Down
syndrome in the same classes. The study also investigated
teachers’ behaviour ratings for the children and examined
the relationship between behaviour problems and popularity.
Based on earlier research, it was expected that the children
with Down syndrome would be rated by their teachers as
having more behaviour problems than the typically
developing children, and that there would be an association
between behaviour problems and peer acceptance for the
children with Down syndrome and the typically developing
children. Measures of expressive language and language
comprehension were also used to investigate possible
associations between language competence and peer
acceptance. We expected that the children with Down
syndrome may enjoy less popularity overall, and that they
could be chosen less often as companions than the other
children. Given the importance of language skills in peer
interactions, we expected to find that children with better
language skills would enjoy more popularity than those with
poor skills.
girls and 5 boys aged from 7 to 8 years were interviewed. All
were able to understand and respond to questions about
which three children they liked the most and which they least
liked. The question about the most liked children yielded
the most nominations with children tending to give more
than the three names they were asked for. It was decided to
ask for five names in the main study; the number of negative
nominations was not increased as children were most
hesitant with their responses to this question.
In addition to the questions designed to yield a popularity
rating, a range of other questions that were thought to be
informative about children’s companions was also piloted.
From this range, the three questions that were most readily
understood and answered with the greatest ease were
chosen for the main study. These questions are items from
a companionship scale (Mendelson, Aboud & Lanthier 1994)
and ask who the children like to be with at lunch time or in
the playground, or who they would like to invite home.
Main study
Participants
Consent was obtained from head teachers following an
explanatory letter from the Sarah Duffen Centre which has a
role in providing educational advice to the schools and is
conducting longitudinal research in these schools in which
the children with Down syndrome are involved. A subset of
16 children from this project took part in the study.
The mainstream schools are all within the same education
authority and, in each case, the child with Down syndrome
was the only such child in their class. The group included
eight boys and eight girls whose ages ranged from 8 years
4 months to 11 years (Mean = 9 years 6 months). Three of
the girls were a chronological year older than their
classmates and five were the same age. Four of the boys
were a chronological year older than their classmates and
the other four were with same age classmates. Some of the
classes had been together for one year only; in others, the
children had known most of the children in their class from
pre-school nursery groups.
Within each class, children of the same gender as the child
with Down syndrome were selected for the study. In total,
the typically developing children consisted of 125 boys and
101 girls. One class of boys contained a mixed age group
with one 5 year old and ten 6 year olds. Apart from this class,
the boys ranged in age from 7 to 11 years (Mean = 8 years
3 months). Amongst the girls there was one 6 year old child
but the other children ranged in age from 7 to 10 years (Mean
= 8 years 2 months).
Measures
Popularity measure
The popularity/acceptance score was obtained by
interviewing the children with Down syndrome and the other
children selected for the study from their class about their
friendships.
Method
The questions posed to the children were:
Pilot study
Q1. Out of the girls/boys in your class, who are the 5 you
like most?
Q2. Who is your very best friend in the class?
A pilot study was carried out with members of a mainstream
class which included no children with learning disabilities. 5
102
Volume 4
Q3. Who are the 3 girls/boys you least like?
Q4. Which 3 girls/boys would you choose to sit with at lunch
time?
Q5. Which 3 girls/boys would you choose to play with in the
playground?
Q6. Which 3 girls/boys would you most like to invite home
after school?
Negative nominations in response to question 3 were
subtracted from positive nominations in response to
question 1 and the scores were standardised to allow for
differing class sizes (Coie & Dodge 1983, Musun-Miller
1990). Earlier work shows this method has yielded reliability
measures of between 0.46 to 0.88 over a twelve week period
(Coie, Dodge & Coppotelli 1982) which seems reasonable
given that some degree of changes of friendships could be
expected with children of the age studied.
Behaviour measure
The Conners Teacher Rating Scale (Conners, 1969) was
used to measure classroom behaviour. Each of 39 items
are rated on a scale of “not at all”, “just a little”, “pretty much”
and “very much” with responses assigned scores of 0 - 3
respectively. A total score can be obtained by summing
across all items. Factor analysis shows the scale has six
factors: Hyperactivity, which includes items such as
“inattentive, easily distracted” or “ disturbs other children”;
a Conduct factor, which includes items such as
“quarrelsome”, “destructive” or “teases or interferes with
other children”; an Emotional factor which includes items
such as “often cries”, “temper outbursts”; an AnxiousPassive factor associated with items such as “lacks
leadership”, “submissive”, “shy”; an A-social factor including
items like “isolates self from others” and “no sense of fair
play”; and a Daydream scale which includes items such as
“fails to finish things he starts” and “daydreams”.
Language measures (obtained from children with Down
syndrome).
Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG) (Bishop, 1983).
This is a test of grammar understanding. Each item
involves the selection of the correct picture to match a
phrase or sentence spoken by the examiner.
British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS) (Dunn & Dunn,
1982). This test measures receptive vocabulary by asking
the child to select the correct picture to match each item
spoken by the examiner.
Mean Length of Utterance (MLU). A sample of a minimum
length of 50 utterances was collected. MLU was calculated
in accordance with Miller and Chapman’s (1981)
adaptation of Brown’s (1973) formula and used as a
measure of grammatical complexity.
Unintelligibility score. A crude measure of intelligibility was
calculated by counting the number of unintelligible
utterances in the sample of 50 used to measure MLU.
Procedure
The interviewers were introduced to each class and the
children were told they were interested in children’s
friendships and would like to ask all the boys/girls in the
class questions about who they liked and why they liked
them. The children were called out of the class individually
and interviewed in a quiet area of the school. The order in
Number 3
1996
which the children were called was according to the class
register. No indication of any particular interest in the child
with Down syndrome was given.
At the start of the interview, the interviewer explained the
type of questions to be asked. The child was told they did
not have to participate if they did not want to, and also told
that if there were any particular questions they did not want
to answer they could move on to the next question. All the
children agreed to participate. The popularity questions were
asked and responses recorded. Following each question
the responses were written on a blank piece of paper in
view of the child. Any reasons given for the selection were
also written down along with any other comments made
about the questions. At the end of the interview, the children
were thanked for helping, told that their answers would not
be discussed with anybody else, and asked not to talk about
their answers with their classmates.
A conversation with each child with Down syndrome was
recorded to obtain a language sample. A box of toys, books
and postcards provided materials to elicit conversation
where necessary. The conversation continued until a
minimum of 50 utterances had been recorded. The
recordings were transcribed and agreed by two listeners.
Receptive language measures using the TROG and BPVS
were collected on another visit to school for use in another
study.
The class teacher was asked to complete the behaviour
questionnaire for each of the children interviewed and to
return them by post.
Results
Social status groups
A popularity score was calculated for each participant by
subtracting the number of negative/least liked ratings from
the number of positive/most liked ratings. To allow for
differences in class size, scores were converted to z scores
(Coie et al, 1982). The scores were used to divide the
children into three social status groups. A high acceptance
score was defined as a z score of at least +1, and a low
acceptance score was defined as a z score of -1 or lower,
with children between these two points being classified as
an average acceptance group, following other users of this
methodology (Asher & Dodge, 1986; Musun-Miller, 1990).
The opportunity to include five children in the “most liked”
group in the procedure used in this study means that these
results may be slightly skewed in favour of higher popularity
for our participants compared with earlier studies.
The frequency and distribution of popularity/acceptance
scores for the group of children with Down syndrome were
compared with those for the typically developing children
(see Table 1).
The children with Down syndrome appeared most often in
the average acceptance group with only a small proportion
identified as either highly or poorly accepted. A greater
proportion of the typically developing children appeared in
high and low acceptance categories but chi-square analysis
shows no significant association between group and
acceptance. Further analysis revealed no significant
differences in acceptance between boys and girls with Down
syndrome or boys and girls in the typically developing group.
103
Down Syndrome Research and Practice
Table 1: Frequencies and percentages of children in each social status group
classified according to popularity scores for each group of children
Typically Developing
(n=226)
Down Syndrome
(n=16)
High
41 (18%)
1 (6%)
Average
148 (66%)
13 (81%)
Low
37 (17%)
2 (13%)
Acceptance
Table 2: Mean scores of typically developing children and those of children with Down syndrome
on Conners Teachers Rating Scales.
Typically
Developing
Children
n=122
Children with Down U(16,122)
Syndrome
Scale
Hyperactivity
Conduct
Emotional
Anxious/Passive
A-social
Daydream
12.24
5.72
4.37
4.5
2.3
2.28
21.94
10.5
9.13
5.31
2.31
8.5
494
518.5
457
789.5
805
697.5
p<0.001
p=0.001
p<0.001
NS
NS
p<0.05
Overall score
31.4
52.75
515
p=0.001
n=16
There was no relationship between popularity ratings and
the age of the children.
Behaviour measures
Although questionnaires were completed for all the children
with Down syndrome, some teachers did not complete the
questionnaires for all the other children in the class. Data
were obtained for six complete classes of boys and three
complete classes of girls plus another three classes where
the teachers had completed the form for a subset of the
children. The analysis which follows is based on data from
122 children (78 boys and 44 girls) plus the children with
Down syndrome.
The Conners Teacher Rating Scale yielded a total score as
well as scores on the six subscales described above. For
each of these measures, Mann-Whitney U tests were used
to compare the scores of children with Down syndrome with
those of the typically developing group (see Table 2).
Table 2 shows overall differences in behaviour between the
children with Down syndrome and their typically developing
classmates. They are perceived to have greater problems
in the areas of hyperactivity, conduct and emotional
problems, the differences in these areas being highly
significant. There are also significant differences in the levels
of daydreaming behaviour. The Anxious/Passive and A-social
scales did not distinguish the two groups.
104
Significance
level
The association between classroom behaviour and social
status
Table 3 shows the Conners Teacher Rating scores for overall
behaviour and for the subscales for each social status group
for the typically developing children.
Kruskall Wallis one way analysis of variance was used to
investigate the differences between behaviour scores for
the three acceptance groups. For each type of behaviour
problem, with the exception of Anxiety, there were clear
differences between the groups. The most popular or
accepted children had fewest problems whilst the rejected
children in the low acceptance group had the most severe
behaviour problems.
It was not possible to undertake a similar analysis for the
children with Down syndrome since there were few of them
in our sample and the majority were placed in the average
acceptance group. However, it is worth noting that for every
type of problem except daydreaming, the behaviour scores
of the children with Down syndrome show more severe
problems than the typical children, even those who are
poorly accepted by their peers (compare Table 2 means for
children with Down syndrome with the low acceptance
means in Table 3). This suggests that, although classroom
behaviour differentiates popular and unpopular children in
the general population, there appears to be no similar
relationship between behaviour problems and popularity
Volume 4
Number 3
1996
Table 3: Mean behaviour scores for high, average and low acceptance groups for the typically
developing children.
High
Acceptance
Average
Low
χ (p)
Acceptance Acceptance
Hyperactivity
9.52
14.8
18.7
7.18 (p<0.05)
Conduct problems
4.04
6.26
8.88
5.41 (p<0.05)
Emotional
2.96
5.21
6.08
5.59 (p<0.05)
Anxious/Passive
3.36
4.84
4.38
3.49 (NS)
A-Social
1.28
2.08
4.17
8.25 (p<0.05)
Daydreaming
1.48
2.43
3.17
6.80 (p<0.05)
Overall scores
22.44
33.84
45.3
7.27 (p<0.05)
Table 4: Language profiles of the children with Down syndrome:
TROG, BPVS and MLU mean age equivalent scores and mean
unintelligible utterances.
Mean
Range
TROG
BPVS
MLU
4y 7m
4y 11m
3y 4m
4y 0m to 5y 6m
3y 7m to 6y 7m
1y 8m to 6y 5m
No. unintelligible
utterances
8.75
1-20
The MLU age equivalent scores were calculated
using the regression equation derived from preschool data by Chapman, Ross and Seung (1993).
Table 4 also shows the mean number of
unintelligible utterances.
Correlations were calculated between the
children’s popularity scores and all language
measures. There were no significant relationships
between either expressive or receptive language
abilities and the popularity of children with Down
syndrome.
Table 5: Percentage of children receiving nominations as best friend.
Number of nominations received
None One
Two
Three Four
Five
Boys
Girls
43.3
37.4
33.9
42.4
17.3
15.2
3.1
4.0
1.6
1.0
0.8
0
Boys with DS
Girls with DS
75.0
75.0
0
12.5
25
12.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
among the children with Down syndrome. This impression was
confirmed by the use of Spearman’s rho to investigate the correlation
between the behaviour scores and popularity rating of the children
with Down syndrome. There were no significant relationships between
popularity and any of the Conners scale scores for this group.
Language measures
The TROG, BPVS and MLU scores for the children with Down
syndrome were converted to age equivalent scores (see Table 4).
Friendship
The other questions asked in this study were
concerned with friendship which is a rather
different concept from popularity. It may be just
as rewarding to have one special friend as to enjoy
general classroom popularity.
All of the participants were included in this part of
the analysis. The children were asked who was
their very best friend. Four of the children with
Down syndrome received best friend nominations,
two girls and two boys. Of these, three were
nominated twice. A comparison with typically
developing children is shown in Table 5.
The results suggest that few of the children with
Down syndrome enjoy the status of being
someone else’s best friend. Only about 25% of
the children were nominated as best friends
compared with about 60% of the typically
developing children.
Finally, the children were asked who they liked to
sit with at lunch, to play with in the playground
and to invite home after school. Table 6 shows
the number of times children with Down syndrome
were nominated compared with their classmates.
105
Down Syndrome Research and Practice
Table 6: Percentage of children chosen as companions by their classmates
Number of nominations received
None One Two Three Four
“Sit with at lunch”
Children with DS
Other children
43.8
“Play in the playground”
Children with DS
Other children
“Invite home”
Children with DS
Other children
18.8
15.9
25.0
20.8
12.5
26.5
0
12.8
25.0
25.0
15.9
18.8
21.2
18.8
25.7
12.5
15.9
56.3
12.5
18.1
6.3
21.2
6.3
23.9
Although there was little difference in the number of times
the typical children and the children with Down syndrome
were chosen as playground companions, there was a more
marked difference between the groups on the other two
questions. Just under half of the children were never selected
as a lunchtime companion and over half of them were never
invited to a schoolmate’s home after school. Mann-Whitney
U tests confirmed that the differences observed for these
two questions were significant: for “lunchtime companions”,
U (16,226)=1207.7, p<.005; for “invitations home”, U
(16,226)=1182.5, p<.02.
Spearmans rank order correlation coefficient was used to
investigate the relationship between the number of times
children were selected as companions in the three situations
and their behaviour and language. A Bonferroni adjustment
of the probability level accepted was used to take account
of the large number of correlations. There were no significant
correlations between the number of times the children were
selected as companions and their scores on the language
or behaviour measures.
Discussion
The study has revealed some interesting similarities and
differences between children with Down syndrome and their
classmates in mainstream classrooms. The investigation
of popularity or acceptance showed that children with Down
syndrome were generally no less popular than the typically
developing children. This differs from most previous research
involving mainstreamed children with learning disabilities
(Weiner et al 1990). It also differs from studies involving preschool children with Down syndrome who were observed
as isolated within the mainstream nursery school
environment (Sinson & Wetherick 1981). The finding that
most of the children with Down syndrome in our study enjoy
average acceptance is similar to that of Dudley-Marling and
Edmiason (1985) who concluded that most learning disabled
have relatively neutral social status; certainly few of the
children in our sample were either highly popular or rejected.
The investigation of behaviour problems showed that the
children with Down syndrome had significantly more
problems of all kinds except Anxious/Passive behaviour or
A-social behaviour. For the typically developing children, our
results confirmed the association between classroom
behaviour and acceptance predicted by earlier research
(Coie, Dodge & Kupersmidt, 1990). The highly accepted
106
Five or more
0
15.0
8.9
children had fewest problems
of any kind, with those in the
average group having
significantly more problems,
and those in the rejected
category having significantly
more behaviour problems
again.
Interestingly, this association
between behaviour and peer
9.3
acceptance was not evident
for the children with Down
syndrome, even though their
18.8 0
behaviour was worse even
17.3 12.8 6.7
than that of the rejected group
of typically developing
children. There could be a
number of reasons for this.
Lewis and Lewis (1987) suggest that classmates have
sympathetic attitudes towards the severely learning disabled
and that they are viewed as qualitatively different from the
group of “problem” children who would normally be found
in the rejected category. These authors found the severely
learning disabled were seen as having no responsibility for
and no control over their condition and so were viewed more
positively than a group of low achievers who were seen as
responsible for their own difficulties. It is also possible that
other aspects of the personality or behaviour of the children
with Down syndrome compensate for the problems. An
investigation of pro-social behaviours might bring to light
differences between the children with Down syndrome and
other children with difficult behaviours who are generally
rejected by their classmates.
0
11.9
The children were also asked about who they liked to spend
time with inside or outside school. There was no significant
difference between the groups for playing in the playground.
This is also the time when children are most likely to engage
in fantasy play for which Goldstein and Gallagher (1992)
suggest poor language skills may limit children’s value as
play partners. Possibly poor spoken language does not limit
potential for such play as long as communication can be
maintained. Communication and language are quite
separate (Sperber & Wilson, 1986) and it is skill in the former
that may be important for social interactions. The high levels
of hyperactivity, conduct and emotional problems are
evidently less of a hindrance to the other children in the
playground environment than in class. However, it is also
possible that these behaviours do not feature so much in
the playground. Further research to investigate the
situational factors associated with problem behaviours in
this group would be useful.
Significantly fewer children with Down syndrome are chosen
to sit with at lunch time. There could be practical reasons
for this as some may receive supervision that singles them
out so that the other children are not able to sit with them.
Lewis and Lewis (1987) found the severely learning disabled
were viewed as potentially “messy”; perhaps some of the
children with Down syndrome were not as socially skilled at
the dinner table as others and so were avoided.
The question of who to choose to invite home also resulted
in significantly fewer nominations of children with Down
syndrome. Even the most popular of these children,
Volume 4
according to the acceptance measure used, was not chosen
for an invitation. Parents may play a large part in determining
such a choice. Lewis and Lewis (1987) found children
worried about parental approval of the children with learning
disabilities. Lewis (1995) found that adults have a poor
understanding of learning disability. Further study of the
attitudes of the parents of the typically developing children
could be illuminating. It may be important to brief other
parents when the school is preparing to receive a child with
Down syndrome. Parents may need some reassurance
about their own ability to cope with a child before
encouraging after school visits.
Few of the children with Down syndrome were chosen as
best friends by their classmates; 25% of them enjoyed this
status compared with about 60% of the typically developing
children. This is a much lower proportion than some earlier
studies; Byrne et al (1989) found that 58% of the children in
their study had one special friend. However, the numbers of
typically developing children reporting a special friendship
was also relatively low in the present study compared with
the figure of 76% reported by Newson and Newson (1976).
This study of peer acceptance of children in mainstream
classes provides a relatively positive picture with the majority
of the children enjoying average levels of acceptance and
very few of them rejected. Although the children do show
significantly higher levels of problem behaviours than their
classmates it is encouraging that, while these will
undoubtedly have negative effects on other aspects of their
education and development, they do not cause their
classmates to reject them. This is very different from the
strong association found between behaviour problems and
peer rejection in typically developing children. This difference
could be seen in a negative light in that it suggests that the
children with Down syndrome are perceived as different by
their classmates. Lewis and Lewis (1987) discussed the
sympathetic view of severely learning disabled taken by
children, and Guralnick (1981) spoke of interactions between
the children as being unequal and “older sibling like”. A more
positive way of viewing this is that if the children are going
to need some form of support and supervision throughout
their lives, then these mainstream children are learning to
provide this with supportive “sibling like” relationships, and
they themselves are gaining some insight and understanding
of the needs of special children.
References
Asher,S.R. and Dodge,K. (1986). Identifying children who
are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22,
444-449.
Asher,S.R . and Hymel,F. (1981). Children’s social
competence in peer relations: sociometric and behavioural
assessment. in Wine, J.D. and Smye, M.D. (Eds.), Social
Competence. New York: Guilford.
Baumrind,D . (1972). Socialisation and Instrumental
Competence in Young Children In Hartup W.W. The Young
Child: Reviews of Research. USA: Association for the
education of the young child.
Bishop,D.V.M. (1983). Test for the Reception of Grammar
(TROG). Department of Psychology, University of
Manchester: Chapel Press.
Brooks-Lynn and Luciano, (1985). Social competence in
young handicapped children: a developmental perspective.
In M. Sigman (Ed.), Children with Emotional Disorders and
Developmental Disabilities: Assessment and Treatment.
Number 3
1996
Orlando, Florida: Grume and Stratton.
Brown, R.(1973). A First Language: The Early Stages.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Byrne,E.A., Cunningham,C.C. and Sloper, P. (1989).
Families and Their Children with Down’s syndrome: One
Feature in Common. London: Routledge.
Carpenter,B. (1995). ‘Tell me about Katie’: Attitudes of
mainstream 7-8 year olds to a peer with Down’s syndrome.
Down’s Syndrome: Research and Practice, 3, 2, 45-52.
Chapman,R.S. (1995). Language development in children
and adolescents with Down syndrome. In P. Fletcher and B.
MacWhinney (Eds.), The Handbook of Child Language.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Chapman,R.S., Ross,D.R . and Seung,H. (1993).
Longitudinal language development in children and
adolescents with Down syndrome. Paper presented at the
American Speech-Language Association, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin, USA, November 1993.
Charlesworth,R. and Hartup,W.W. (1967). Positive social
reinforcement in the nursery school peer group. Child
Development, 38, 993-1002.
Coie, J.D. and Dodge,K.A. (1983). Continuities and
changes in children’s social status: a five year longitudinal
study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-282.
Coie,J.D., Dodge,K.A. and Cappotelli,H. (1982).
Dimensions and type of social status: a cross age
perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
Coie,J.D., Dodge, K.A., and Kupersmidt, J.B. (1990) Peer
group behaviour and social status In Asher,S.R. and
Coie,J.D. (Eds), Peer Rejection in Childhood. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Conners,C. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug
studies with children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126,
884-888.
Cuskelly,M. and Dadds,M. (1992). Behavioural problems
in children with Down’s syndrome and their siblings. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33 (4) 749-761.
Domino,G. (1965). Personality traits in institutional
mongoloids. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69, 568570.
Dunn,L.M. and Dunn,L.M.L . (1982). British Picture
Vocabulary Scale (short form). Windsor: NFER-Nelson
Publishing Company.
Duck,S. (1983). Friends For Life: The Psychology of Close
Relationships. Brighton: The Harvester Press.
Dudley-Marling,C.C. and Edmiaston,R. (1985). Social
status of learning disabled children and adolescents: a
review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 189-204.
Education Act (1981). London: HMSO.
Falvey,M. (1995). Inclusion of students with disabilities in
public schools and classrooms with their non-disabled peers
In Nadel L. and Rosenthal D. (Eds), Down Syndrome: Living
and Learning in the Community. New York: Wiley.
Field,T.M., Roseman,S., Destefano,L. and Koewler,J.H.
(1981). Play behaviours of handicapped preschool children
in the presence and absence of non-handicapped peers.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 49-58.
Fowler, A. (1990). Language abilities in children with Down
syndrome: evidence for a specific syntactic delay. In C.
Cicchetti and M. Beeghly (Eds.), Children with Down
Syndrome: A Developmental Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ganiban,J., W agner,S. and Cicchetti,D. (1990).
Temperament and Down syndrome. In C. Cicchetti and M.
Beeghly (Eds.), Children with Down Syndrome: A
Developmental Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge
107
Down Syndrome Research and Practice
University Press.
Gath,A. (1972). The mental health of siblings of congenitally
abnormal children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 13, 211-218.
Gath,A. and Gumley,D. (1986). Behaviour problems in
retarded children with special reference to Down’s
syndrome. British Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 156-161.
Gath,A. and Gumley,D. (1987). Retarded children and their
siblings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28 (5),
715-730.
Gibson,D. (1978). Down’s syndrome: The Psychology of
Mongolism. London: Cambridge University Press.
Goldstein,H. and Gallagher,T.M. (1992). Strategies for
promoting the social-communicative competence of young
children with specific language impairment. In Odom, S.L.,
McConnell, S.R. and McEvoy, M.A. (Eds.), Social
Competence of Young Children with Disabilities: Issues and
Strategies for Intervention. Baltimore: Brookes.
Gottlieb,J. and Leyser,Y. (1981). Friendships between
mentally retarded and non-retarded children. In Asher S.R.
and Gottman J.M. (Eds.), The Development of Children’s
Friendships. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gottman,J.M. (1983). How children become friends.
Monographs for the Society for Research in Child
Development, 48(3, Serial No. 201).
Gottman,J.M. and Mettetal,G. (1986). Speculations about
social and affective development: Friendships and
acquaintanceship through adolescence. In J.M. Gottman
and J.G. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of Friends: Speculation
on affective development. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Gottman,J.M. and Parkhurst,J.T. (1980). A developmental
theory of friendship and acquaintanceship processes. In
W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child
Development: Vol. 13: Development of Cognition, Affect, and
Social Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Green,J.M., Dennis,J. and Bennets,L.A. (1989) Attention
disorder in a group of young Down’s syndrome children.
Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 33, 105-122.
Gresham,F.M. and Reschly,D.J. (1986). Social skill deficits
and low peer acceptance of mainstreamed learning disabled
children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 23-32.
Gronlund,N.E. and Anderson,L . (1957). Personality
characteristics of socially accepted, socially neglected and
socially rejected junior high school pupils. Educational
Administration and Supervision, 43, 329-338.
Gunn,P. and Berry,P. (1985). The temperament of Down’s
syndrome toddlers and their siblings. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 973-979.
Guralnick,M.J. (1978). Early Intervention and the Integration
of Handicapped and Non-handicapped Children. Baltimore:
University Park Press.
Guralnick,M.J. (1981). The social behaviour of preschool
children at different developmental levels: effects of group
composition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31,
115-130.
Guralnick,M.J. (1984). The peer interactions of young
developmentally delayed children in specialised and
integrated settings In Field T., Roopnarine J.L. and Segal
M.S. (Eds.), Friendship in Normal and Handicapped
Children. Norwood, U.S.A: Ablex.
Hamilton,C. (1993). Investigation of articulatory patterns of
young adults with Down’s syndrome using
electropalatography. Down’s Syndrome: Research and
Practice, 1, 1, 15-28.
108
Hartup,W.W. (1983). Peer Relations. In Mussen P.H. (Ed.),
Handbook of Child Psychology Volume 4. New York: Wiley.
Horowitz E. (1981). Popularity, decentering ability and role
taking skills in learning disabled and normal children.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 23-30
Kistner,J.A. and Gatlin,D. (1989). Correlates of peer
rejection among children with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 12, 133-140.
Lewis,A. and Lewis,V. (1987) The attitudes of young
children towards peers with severe learning difficulties. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 287-292.
Lewis,A. (1995). Children’s Understanding of Disability.
London: Routledge.
Mendelson,M.J., Abound,F.E. and Lanthier,R.P. (1994).
Kindergartners’ relationships with siblings, peers and friends.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 3, 419-430.
Miller,J.F. and Chapman,R.S. (1981). The relation between
age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 154-161.
Moreno,J.L. (1934). Who Shall Survive? A New Approach
to the Problem of Human Interrelations. Washington:
Nervous and Mental Disease publishing.
Musun-Miller,L. (1990). Sociometrics with preschool
children: Agreement between different strategies. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 195-61.
Newson,J. and Newson,E. (1976). Seven Years Old in the
Home Environment. London: Allen and Unwin.
Parker,J.G. and Asher,S.R. (1993). Friendship and
friendship quality in middle childhood: links with peer group
acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social
dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 4, 611-621.
Parker,J. and Gottman,J. (1989). Social and emotional
development in a relational context. In T. Berndt & G. Ladd
(Eds.), Peer Relationship in Child Development. New York:
John Wiley.
Perlmutter,B.F., Crocker,J., Cordray,D. and Garstecki,D.
(1983). Sociometric status and related personality
characteristics of mainstreamed learning disabled
adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 20-30.
Perret-Clermont,A. (1980). Social Interaction and Cognitive
Development in Children. New York: Academic Press.
Piaget,J. (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child. U.S.A.:
Free Press.
Pueschel,S.M., Bernier,J.C. and Pezzullo,J.C. (1991).
Behavioural observations in children with Down’s syndrome.
Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 35, 502-511.
Serafica,F.C. (1990). Peer relations of children with Down
syndrome In: Cicchetti, D. and Beeghly, M. (Eds.), Children
With Down Syndrome: a Developmental Perspective.
Cambridge University Press : New York.
Sinson,J.C. and Wetherick,N.E. (1981). The behaviour of
children with Down’s syndrome in normal playgroups.
Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 25, 113-117.
Siperstein,G.N. and Bak,J.J. (1989). Social relationships
of adolescents with moderate mental retardation. Mental
Retardation, 27, 5-10.
Sperber,D. and Wilson,D. (1986).
Relevance:
Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stainback,L.S. and Stainback,S. (1987). Facilitating
friendships. Education and Training in Mental Retardation.
March, 18-25.
Sullivan,H. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry.
New York:
Tredgold,A.F. (1949). A Textbook of Mental Deficiency.
London: Bailliere.
Warnock,M. (1978). Special Educational Needs: Report of
the Warnock Committee of Enquiry into the Education of
Volume 4
Number 3
1996
Handicapped Children and Young People. Cmd. 7212.
London: HMSO
Weiner,J. (1987). Peer status of learning disabled children
and adolescents: A review of the literature. Learning
Disabilities Research, 2, 62-79.
Weiner,J., Harris,P.J. and Shirer,C. (1990). Achievement
and social-behavioural correlates of peer status in learning
disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 2, 114127.
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Glynis Laws,
Department of Psychology,
University of Surrey,
Guildford,
Surrey GU7 2PW
U.K.
109